Yesterday Tradgardmastare used a word in his most recent blog post that I’d not come across before … gesamkunstwerk. It is a German compound word that has been ‘borrowed’ into the English language and can be translated as meaning 'total artwork', 'total work of art', 'ideal work of art', 'universal artwork', 'synthesis of the arts', 'comprehensive artwork', or 'all-embracing art form'.
It sparked off an interesting online discussion and reminded me of a previous discussion I had taken part in some time ago at Connections UK. I’m a great believer that wargame design is not just art, but also – in its broadest sense – a science. An American professional wargamer took a somewhat different view and argued that a scientific approach was far and away more important, and that like a science experiment, a wargame should be repeatable and produce similar results each time it is played. Only then could its mechanisms and overall design be regarded as tested and proven. The arts approach was rather too woolly for him, and whilst it might be acceptable in a hobby wargame, it wasn’t in one aimed at use by professionals.
So, is wargaming (and particularly wargame design) an art, a science, or some sort of combination of the two?
After some considerable thought, I have come to the conclusion that it is the latter … and this started me wondering if my thinking was affected by my educational background and experience.
The American I had discussed wargame design with at Connections UK came from a scientific background whilst mine is a mixture. When I had done my O-levels, I chose to do A-levels in History, Economics, and Mathematics … a combination that did not fit easily into my school’s subject timetable. My secondary school was very traditional, even by the standards of the late 1960s, and felt that pupils should follow courses in the arts or the sciences. My combination crossed the boundaries between the two, and I and the other pupils who chose this non-traditional course combination were required to attend half the lessons in one or more of our A-levels. As a result, I only attended 50% of my A-level Mathematics classes and I ended up with the the lowest pass grade I could achieve. I did – however – study statistics and probability, and over the years this has been of great help to me as a designer of wargames.
On leaving school, I went into banking, and thence into teaching. As a teacher I began teaching a range of subjects at secondary school level, but after a couple of years I specialised in History, with some Geography thrown in for good measure. When the need arose, I took on teaching Social Economics and Business Studies, and eventually moved into the area of Information Technology.
On reflection, learning how to write computer programs in BASIC – an essential skill at the time for teaching Information Technology – taught me lessons that I was able to carry over into my wargame designs. Programs usually comprise an number of sub-routines, each of which needs to be designed and tested repeatedly ... which is very akin to what my American colleague was proposing as a scientific approach to wargame design. Once the sub-routines work, they can then be combined together within what is sometimes referred to as the program's architecture to produce a final, workable program.
Looked at from the wargame design perspective, if you regard each of the mechanisms I use as a sub-routine and the turn sequence of the rules as its architecture, then any wargame rules I write are a sort of analogue of a computer program. This – to me – is the science of wargame design.
So, where does the art come in?
It comes in in many different ways. It is there in the aesthetic of the painted toy soldiers and the modelled terrain or even the counters and map board used in a board wargame. It is also there in the study of history that is central to an enjoyment of wargaming ... and which also informs the way one designs the sub-routines or mechanisms incorporated into the rules. They must 'work' in the chosen historical framework one is working within, otherwise – in my opinion – they have no validity.
Getting the two side of wargame design – the art and the science – to work together has been referred to as a 'dark art', and in many ways, it is ... and herein lies the answer to my original question, 'Is wargame design and art, or a science, or both?'
To me it is a 'dark art' that combines elements of both art and science, and as long as it remains true to both of these ways of looking at the world, the resultant design will work ... and should work well.
So, to return to the German word that Tradgardmastare used, perhaps it should really have been gesamtkunstwerkundwissenschaft?
This madeup compound word means 'total work of art and science' ... and I think that it sums up my view of wargame design rather well.
Hi Bob....A very interesting discussion. My opinion is that your American friend is totally wrong. War, real or gaming, is not and should not be repeatable. That would defy history. There are far too many variables in war for anything to be repeatable unless the situation is very one sided. Wargames should be the same and that is why you have dice, to introduce the variable. As a final word...Sun Tzu called his book The Art Of War....how can anyone argue with him....Regards.
ReplyDeleteTony Adams,
DeleteI think that one of the problems that some professionals have with wargaming is the chance element. I have noticed that as soon as dice appear, their reaction becomes very negative, whereas if you have some sort of ‘black box’ that generates random results, they are more accepting.
I was once told that an American admiral who was taking part in a wargame actually had a US Marine Gunnery Sergeant to throw his dice for him so that he would not appear ‘tainted’ by their use!
Your point about the title of Sun Tzu’s book is well made … and the next time I have this discussion, I will remember to mention it.
All the best,
Bob
I agree with Bob that it is a mixture of the two. There is an 'art' in coming up with a good 'scientific experiment'. Luckily I missed out on the apparently painful rulesets of the 1980's that from what I've heard, were shall we say, too scientific, stats and tables based? You need a good 'engine' to run the rules but the 'art' is making this easily accessible and understandable.
ReplyDeleteSteve J.,
DeleteAh, the 1980s! Most wargamers seemed to be obsessed with so-called reality, and it was assumed that the more detailed input went into their rules, the more ‘realistic’ they would be. The upshot of this approach was a situation where a turn could take upwards of an hours and games rarely reached a conclusion.
I like your last sentence, which sums up my position almost exactly.
All the best,
Bob
Bob, that's a very broad ranging question with no easy answer....
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of the idea in the 1980s or 1990s espoused by Paddy Griffith, best summed up by the catchline "the case against toy soldiers" ; a purely scientific approach is to look at the optimum approach, which would not be to employ toy soldiers at all, with the issues around ground v figure scale and use of representative man to figure ratios which tend to distort rather than assist.
Against that is the purely aesthetic pleasure of miniature toy soldiers which encapsulates "amateur" wargames.
I'd argue we tend to fudge the former in the interests of the latter, which is why it's more of an art than a science. I find rules that over-emphasise the theoretical performance of say guns are generally less appealing than those which allow for extreme results, although weighing the chances against there occurring. So as an example, if using a D6 based method where your research shows the chance of breaking an infantry square at lets say for the sake of argument 5%; giving 1 in 6 chance distorts this to 16.66%, so scientifically should probably be discounted as an outcome. Which set would you rather play, one that never allows for cavalry to break a square or one that perhaps distorts the chances of it happening?
Obviously, this is a very simplistic example but perhaps identifies that toy soldier games incline more to art than science.
My previous career was in healthcare; my training was very focussed on scientifically measurable outcomes and perhaps less on interpersonal interactions. It gave the impression that in counselling for example, there were certain rules to apply and responses to give. What I found was that most people switched off when receiving a standard response, but reacted differently to a heartfelt reply. I learned it was better to listen to what your "instinct" was telling you rather than intellectually analysing it; much of what we absorb is on an unconscious level that it's best to listen to what your "gut" is telling you rather than simply rely on facts only. By all means employ scientific method to test your hypothesis, but equally don't rely on "standard tests" to give you all the facts.
I have intellectualised this as whatever involves humans has all sorts of irrational and emotive dimensions that it means relying on a purely scientific approach will not work. This equally applies to warfare. How many pundits for example predicted a quick collapse of Ukraine?
So, I'd argue more for art. Certainly in my imaginary worlds.
Neil
Neil Patterson (Neil),
DeleteThanks for your detailed and very interesting comment. A lot of it resonated with my own thinking and experience, particularly your comment about counselling. Having been ‘counselled’ in the past after I had a breakdown due to stress, there were times when it felt very formulaic.
The same sort of standardisation was being introduced into the world of education when I retired. You had to write a lesson plan and stick to it, regardless of the circumstances pertaining when you had to deliver it. I can remember numerous occasions when something had happened and the class was not receptive to what I intended to teach. In those circumstances, I would junk the lesson plan and do something educational that would work and ensure that the class progressed their learning. In Ofsted terms, that would have been a failed lesson, when the truth was that has I stuck to the plan, the lesson would have been a disaster.
All the best,
Bob
It is like architecture. Without the art it is ugly, without the science it falls down.
ReplyDeleteTrebian,
DeleteAn excellent analogy!
All the best,
Bob
Interesting post. I crossed a background in art with a technical education, and have worked for decades in accident reconstruction. We often conduct testing, where we simulate the accident, producing repeatable results that are usually nearly identical to those of the accident.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, I tend to agree that game rules are a combination of science and art, as I believe that the art is critical to the need for the rules to be enjoyable. In my experience, simulation has no requirement to be enjoyable, thus can be a construct of pure science.
I quite like the analogy relating to BASIC (I had to learn that too), as that is very much how I see my own rules.
The degree to which rules should be art or science, is probably simply a matter of preference or objective of the player. A professional gamer probably has a different goal than a hobbyist, so I think there should be quite a range of variation in what we might find from one set of rules to the next.
I would also offer that the art/science question relates to how one runs the game and to how one plays the game, though maybe really, including rules design with these is all part of a bigger "program" called "the game".
Irishserb,
DeleteIt’s interesting how much our own personal educational background and careers inform our attitude to wargaming. Your mixed arts and science background is an interesting one, and the fact that you have experienced and understand the difference between a simulation and a wargame must be extremely useful for you. I wish that some other wargamers could do that!
All the best,
Bob
All pertinent points but I wouls likw to aee this open to further and varied discussion. One point just for the hell of it; I got a good laugh about your expression "Analogue of a Computer Program". Since a computer program is digital in nature you have turned the historical effort of learning how to digitize the "analogue" aspect of nature to finding an "analogue" of a digital system!
ReplyDeleteDick Bryant,
DeleteCheers! I hoped that this blog post might spark off a bit of a discussion … and I’m very pleased with the response I’ve had so far,
I used that expression ‘analogue of a computer program’ without realising quite how circular the whole thing was!
All the best,
Bob
Interesting discussion, Bob!
ReplyDeleteFor some reason the thing reminded me of three opinions of world champions about the nature of chess. I'll given them in reverse order:
Alexander Alekhine: Chess is an art
Jose Capablanca: Chess is a science
Emanuel Lasker: Chess is a fight
... and way the three played was in accordance. My sympathies lie mainly with Lasker, though only Alekhine really loved the game.
I admit, the relevance is only peripheral, but maybe it leads somewhere. My background is as varied as your, a former programmer and systems analyst, moving to teaching 'kiddy lit' as part of a professional development programme to educators. I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a post graduate degree in history and a diploma (a 'proper' one) in Children's Literature.
And I have had a love of history that began, I think, from when I was first learning to read.
Consensus seems to indicate that War Games design involves elements of science and of art. If we think of art as some kind of 'creative expression' or 'creative communication', well, of course war games design is an art. If we think of science as applying in some way, natural laws, mechanics, scaling (time and space) and statistical expectations and variances, scaling, and mechanics, then , of course war games design is a science.
In my view, war games design is like any other act of creation that interprets the (nature of the) physical world, focusing onto a particular aspect. That is to say, war games design is a craft.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteI’d never heard of those opinions about chess before … but they are a very interesting take on such a universally played game. Like you, I tend to agree with Lasker.
What an interesting and varied career you have had! I actually worked part time or as a student in quite a number of very different jobs, including in a supermarket, in a blacksmith’s forge, and as a travel insurance underwriter.
I think that you have summarised the artistic and scientific aspects of wargames design very well … your conclusion that it is a craft is probably closest to the truth.
All the best,
Bob
A very interesting discussion, my take on it would have to be an art, with a cross over of maths. My art based education A levels and beyond in art and technical drawing as it was called back then definitely eris more to the art of wargame design. Without the maths side it would not work. The probabilities and fractions of dice rolls and modifiers are present in most if not all rules, but without the art it would seem just boring.
DeleteWe all see a beautiful layed out battle with miniatures to match when designing rules/wargame.
Of course that might just be me.
Cheers Steve
Stephen Smith,
DeleteA consensus seems to be appearing. It would appear that there is a general agreement that the wargame design process is a melding of art and science, with the degree of melding dependent upon what criteria the designer wishes to match. In addition, the actual wargame needs to be aesthetically appealing if it is to attract and hold the attention of the players.
All the best,
Bob
I would agree that it is a mixture of both. Relying only on the science may produce a better simulation, but even that is doubtful as it is impossible to take into account all of the possible variables. I think the science is the color palette one uses for the art of wargame design. Many people lose sight of the fact that we are interested in a game not a pure simulation. For the game to be fun it has to be able to capture the imagination of the players, overly complex ' realistic' rules don't do this as immersion is virtually impossible if one is constantly consulting tables, charts and rule books. I'll take art every time. For me, the Portable Wargame hits the mark better than any other rule set I've played, I think you've found the perfect balance between science and art.
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteI think that you have put your finger on an important aspect of this discussion, the difference between a simulation and a wargame. For the former, a far more scientific approach is probably essential … and my American colleague would probably have been thinking of a simulation when he referred to it being repeatable and producing consistent results.
The age of complex wargames rules is still with us, but there does seem to be a distinct move towards simple, playable rules that produce a fun, reasonably accurate wargame … the very criteria that The Portable Wargame was design to match.
Thanks for your kind final comment. It was humbling and much appreciated.
All the best,
Bob
Count me in with the "science AND art" group.
ReplyDeleteI started my path in creating my own war games with James Dunnigan's 1980 book "The Complete Wargames Handbook". Dunnigan was firmly in the SCIENCE camp of wargame design and that's how my early games tended to go. But as I've learned more about the hobby I have moved to my stated position. I can see how a game can be pure science; Warsaw Pact doctrine saw warfare as a simple application of overwhelming force, non-stop advance and the bypassing of fortifications so as to keep up momentum. Their doctrine works well too as long as you have the materiel. Men like Sun Tzu, Clauzewitz and Napoleon saw the art in warfare and it's easy to see in their writings. They all talk about reading the battlefield, figuring out the opponent's strengths, weaknesses and intentions then following some rules to make the best advantage of the situation.
In my scenarios I try to figure out the factors that had the most influence on the outcome of the battle. I can usually find a handful that really made a difference. I'll then put those events on "turn event" cards and draw one at the start of each turn. Usually half the cards are "NO EVENT" with the rest having some major effect on the game. Things will happen early, or late and sometimes even when they are supposed to.
So I end up with Napoleon ignoring Hougoumont or the Prussians arriving early at Waterloo. Maybe General Gates joins his soldiers on the front lines in Saratoga or Benedict Arnold is killed outright. What if General Burgoyne receives supplies before or between the two battles of Saratoga?
Finding a way to work those "what-ifs" in is the artistic part for me and I find them very important to making a game worth playing.
I can understand how pure science is important when doing a professional analysis of a real world conflict. It helps an army find its weaknesses and address them. Science is also good for tournament style games. They're almost like a football match: teams are mostly equal, the field is the same as any other and the game will last for a set length. The art is in the implementing the unknown to create an asymmetrical and thus more exciting game.
It makes me curious what a Pure Art wargame would look like.
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteThank you for your very interesting comment. I have read James Dunnigan’s book, and judging by the influence he still has over professional wargaming in the United States, it’s no surprise that his scientific approach is popular there.
I was interested to read that over time your have changed your point-of-view. I think that as we gain experience, our requirement for what we want out of our wargames changes. I know that mine has. Back in the 1980s I did fall into the complexity = reality trap, but soon realised the error of my ways.
The exploration of ‘what ifs’ is in some ways experimental, but as you argue, this is an artistic experiment and not a scientist one. (By the way, I like your event and no event cards.)
I’ve heard Matrix Games referred to as Pure Art wargames, mainly because they don’t have conventional rules.
All the best,
Bob
Wargaming isn't Art and it isn't Science - it IS a CRAFT.
ReplyDeleteKev Robertson (Kev),
DeleteAs you have proven by the application of your skills to your wargaming, it certainly is a craft.
All the best,
Bob
I came here to say what Kevin said. War is a craft, and arguably graft too.
DeleteAshley,
DeleteI think that there is a lot in what Kev and you say.
All the best,
Bob
My educational background is in mathematics and science, particularly the former, with everything else - most noticeably history - coming from many years of private study. I've found this discussion interesting but also puzzling, and feel that I'm in need of a clearer definition of what your commentators mean by "science" in this context. Whilst some rule effects and mechanisms can be based on the application of scientific laws (anti tank artillery would be an obvious example) I don't see any real use for the scientific method when it comes to writing rules.
ReplyDeleteIt may be that my conception of "science" is simply narrower than others but, to me at least, rules seem to be based on a more general and not specifically scientific knowledge of the world and the historical record (plus a lot of imagination filling in where we remain ignorant as to what really happened on a battlefield). The "historical record" may of course be partial or simply highly inaccurate - as was the case for many years with accounts of the Eastern Front relying almost entirely on German records and the self justifying memoirs of German generals - but this is something that rule writers have to live with.
As for your American professional wargamer's views, I find them rather silly. If a rule set gives that kind of repeatability then there is probably something wrong with them. Giving an overall repeatable and historically accurate result for Trafalgar is probably acceptable - as long as the weather is a "given" rather than a rule output - but for Denmark Straight or North Cape it is not. Contingency played too large a part in the latter two battles for a simple repetition of history to be expected from any decent rules.
Mike Hall,
DeleteYou make an interesting point in your first paragraph. My American colleague who argued that a scientific approach to the creation of wargame had - I understand - a background in applied nuclear physics, where I can imagine that it was very important that one's simulations were going to produce results that were measurable and repeatable with reasonably predicable results. Incidentally, over the years, several writers for THE NUGGET have explained the science that underlies such things as ballistics and armour penetration, all of which have proven useful for those from other backgrounds.
You are right to point out that the sources upon which historians draw can be very unreliable at times, and even so-called primary sources such as memoires and official reports cannot be relied upon to be anything like 100% accurate.
Coincidentally, I happened to watch the film SCULLY last night, and it struck me that its message that the human factor was important when trying to understand why events turned out as they did was pertinent to this discussion. Even the decision to do something minor at one particular moment can seemingly influence events out of all expected proportions.
All the best,
Bob
And again I find myself in agreement with Mike. Likewise I find my definition of scientific is bound up with testing a hypothesis by an experiment and taken a measure.
DeleteAlso, in science nothing is ever proved, it is only ever not falsified. But, there again in a conversational use of science I imagine most people are thinking science is the basis for technology.
And again, an interesting discussion Bob. Thank you.
Ashley,
DeleteIs play-testing a rule mechanism multiple times the application of a scientific approach? It certainly feels like it.
All the best,
Bob
It may feel like it, but I would ask how does it reflect the physical outcomes of warfare.
DeleteLet me expound for a moment. Physics is the the study of the physical world. Working out how and why what we see and do fits together.
Wargaming to be rooted in physics would have to be a theory of war (conflict of force), and our models would have to have one-to-one correlation with the real world outcomes.
So a wargame would have to act as a measurement of real world conflict. Predictive, not just plausible.
This is where the 'it feels like' muddies things, because feelings are not facts.
I'm not saying wargaming couldn't be scientific, I'm just saying that at best what I'm seeing is theory that has yet to be proved, and at worst gamification of conflict.
That's not to say gamification is bad, but it's its own thing. I may be wrong about this, and would be happy to be corrected.
Ashley,
DeleteI’ve heard wargaming referred to as the ‘gamification of war’ before, by someone who was trying get the hobby banned from a venue (from what I can remember, they also added that it was corruptive and a glorification of barbarity), but in the sense you are using it, I think that is not what you are suggesting.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.
All the best,
Bob
You are correct. I'm using gamification in the sense I was introduced to it, namely making a game of what would otherwise be a job.
DeleteAshley,
DeleteCheers! That’s what I was hoping that you meant.
All the best,
Bob
Interesting discussion. But the 'science' elements discussed above are focused on design of game mechanics as in your initial provocation, I can't quite see where the 'art' is in the wargame design: that looks (to me) more like an emergent property which is revealed in the wargame, maybe?
ReplyDeleteJWH,
DeleteYou make an interesting point. To me, the wargame designer has something of the alchemist about them, trying to write the ‘perfect’ set of rules using and combining a variety of methods.
In our case, the science and mathematics we choose to use combine with our historical understanding to create a set of rules which we - the hobby wargamer - often apply to an aesthetically appealing tabletop game.
All the best,
Bob
Hello there Bob,
ReplyDeleteGosh this is a topic I could rattle on about for ages! I am firmly of the school that the combined option, more or less, is probably about right. I would qualify that by saying that in my opinion the more complex the game mechanics then the more a set a game rules is leaning towards the science end of the spectrum. Simpler rules rules have a more ‘feel’ driven approach and this is where the art part comes to the fore.
The 80s saw rules of ever increasing complexity appearing with a myriad of charts and tables and attempting to overlay the ‘game’ with an almost pseudo-scientific level of quantifiable data. This meant longer to play and in many ways stifled by degrees the playability factor.
Later rules seemed to shift focus to the game aspects with more concern about the playability than ‘hard’ data. That did not mean that the science part was missing - far from it - it simply diluted it to work alongside the period ‘feel’.
I think we have learned that a purely scientific approach to rule writing may make for something more ‘accurate’ in the sense of data and statistics but with the playability severely reduced.
From a personal perspective I much prefer rules that capture the period feel via simpler mechanics and for me therein in lies the art as it is relying to a greater extent on how the author sees things. If their ‘vision’ dovetails with your own opinion then you have a result!
Horses for courses eh?
All the best and thanks for an interesting and thought provoking post,
DC
David Crook,
DeleteI think that we are in general agreement on this topic. I can remember those battles that we fought in Eric Knowles’s basement in the late 1970s/early 1980s where playability and fun were paramount. The rules we used seemed to be somewhat of a flexible ‘feast’, with Eric nicking bits from different sets to suit the battle we were fighting. The only exception were the naval wargames, which were fought exclusively using Fletcher Pratt rules … which always struck me as mixture of a scientific and an artistic approach to wargame design.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteIf we are discussing wargame design, then I think it important to exclude the undeniable artistry that many wargamers apply in painting their models - or designing their troop counters for boardgames, because the games would be just as playable and 'realistic' (however one defines that!) if they were played with unpainted or 'badly' (by mainstream wargame magazine standards) painted figures or with crudely hand-drawn counters.
As for actual formulation of rules, I'm uncertain how 'scientific' that can be. If I use the evidence gathered by Ezekiel Baker when testing the rifle adopted by the 95th and 5/60th Foot (clearly a 'scientific' process of experimentation and recording of results) to determine the ranges for my Peninsular skirmish rules, am I being particularly 'scientific'? And is there any 'science' in deciding whether to make players measure ranges according to a 1cm = 20 yards scale, or using a grid
of squares or hexes, each of which represents a distance of, say, 50 yards? If I reuse a rule or mechanism that I have used in other wargames and know from experience 'works' to portray some other event or aspect of combat, is that 'scientific'?
I don't know and, frankly, I don't much care. I'll just carry on designing games in the rather haphazard way I always have!
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteAs always, I can rely on you to remind me not to overthink the process of wargame design! Re-reading my recent blog post, it did verge towards being a bit of pretentious navel gazing.
You know my thinking about the aesthetic side of wargaming; I like my wargames to look aesthetically pleasing, but not to the ridiculous extent that some wargamers go. Painting the teeth in the open mouth of a 15mm figures is - in my opinion - several steps too far!
I think that analysing someone else’s research - such as Baker’s testing - is taking a scientific approach, and the process of ‘converting’ ranges to a scale distance or number of hexes is the application of mathematics … which sort of puts it on the scientific side of the scales.
Your wargame designs are always artistic; well written, properly considered, thought through, and presented in a way that is easy to understand … and - if I can reference Andy Callan’s talk at the first ever COW - they are culturally grounded in the period in which the rules are set. To do that, one has to have artistic flair.
Thanks for bringing my thinking back to a more sensible plain.
All the best,
Bob
To simply echo what others have said, decidedly a mix of art and science. Unlike a professional (military) wargames designer, our games have to be fun, too!
ReplyDeleteAny military that is using training wargames that always give the same results in the same circumstances is investing their time and money unwisely. Even in 2023, the words of Napoleon (The morale is to the physical as 3 is to 1), and Clausewitz (In the whole range of human activities, war most closely resembles a game of cards) remain true; we need look no further than the current war in Ukraine for verification of this!
Gonsalvo,
DeleteVery true. The problem with some of the professionals I have come across is that they have never quite grasped something that I - as a teacher - realised quite early on, and that is that if people are enjoying what they are doing (i.e., having a bit of fun), they often learn better.
The other thing is that wargames are a great environment in which to learn by failing, and that if the results are always going to be the same because there is no element of chance, participants can soon learn the 'right' way to win, and it can become as sterile a learning experience as matching the 'staff solution' at military college.
I understand that both sides in the present conflict in Ukraine are wargaming operational plans beforehand, and that one side seems to be doing this somewhat better than the other.
All the best,
Bob
Got to agree with you. The basic mechanisms are 'science' based but how far to push them, or which ones to leave out, is an art.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the 'art', if used wisely, practitioners can learn more than if they have a perfect 'simulation'.
Nundanket,
DeleteThe consensus seems to be that any ‘science’ (and include mathematics in that) is in the creation of the mechanisms and the ‘art’ is in their combination.
All the best,
Bob
It's a bit of a semantic debate. Sure, if we use historical facts or maths to design wargame rules, we might think this is 'science'. That doesn't make a wargames designer a scientist, and definitely not the player who is simply playing the game. As a scientist myself, I don't consider wargames design a science. Where's the hypothesis? Where's the research question? Where are the experiments? Where is the falsifiability?
ReplyDeleteHowever, in my own designs, I do use quite some math and historical facts. But as I said, that doesn't make it 'science'. It might make it perhaps science-based.
As for the player experience, I think wargames design can be compared to designing an experience that the (hobby) player enjoys. The game has to be fun, otherwise, what's the point? There are some principles in games design that are known to 'work' and that have been documented and described in a 'theory of games design', and focus on the decision space of the player, the emotional connection, the puzzle to be solved, the competition aspect, ...
Hobby wargaming has a big advantage over professional wargaming that its purpose is not limited to training or analyze and study military doctrine. Hobby wargaming can focus on the player experience, and that experience should not be limited to a competition-oriented game. E.g. roleplaying games or storygames inspired by military history can also be considered wargames, in that they immerse you in a specific piece of military history. Such games aim more at creating connection or emotions in the player rather than presenting the player with a military problem to be solved.
Phil Dutré,
DeleteI think that you have summed up the situation rather well, especially with regard to 'hobby' wargaming.
Its interesting to see how many 'hobby' wargames are now being used by the military as a route into the professional-style of game and as a way to get young leaders (lieutenants and NCOs) to recognise that wargames do have a place in the training regime and as a way to develop their decision making skills.
This has been a very interesting exchange of views. There is - in my opinion - no definitive answer, but we have seen quite a few facets of the problem explored and discussed.
All the best,
Bob